Who is David M. Humphrey?

David M. Humphrey is an Ontario lawyer (In Private Practice) with 62 court cases on record from 1995 to 2026. Practice areas include administrative law, criminal/quasi-criminal law, other tribunals.

What courts has David M. Humphrey appeared in?

David M. Humphrey has appeared in Court of Appeal, Superior Court of Justice, Court of Justice, Supreme Court of Canada, Divisional Court, with most appearances at the Court of Appeal.

What areas does David M. Humphrey practice in?

David M. Humphrey practices in administrative law, criminal/quasi-criminal law, other tribunals and 2 other areas, based on 62 court appearances across Ontario.

How many cases has David M. Humphrey handled?

David M. Humphrey has 62 cases on record from 1995 to 2026.

What judges has David M. Humphrey appeared before?

David M. Humphrey has most frequently appeared before Justice John I. Laskin, Justice Marc Rosenberg, Justice Maria V. Carroccia.

minicounsel

Administrative Law

Criminal/Quasi-Criminal Law

Other Tribunals

Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Act matters

Ontario Court of Justice – Summary Conviction Offences

Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law

Environmental Law

David M. Humphrey

In Private PracticeOCA

LSO Profile

Also known as: David Humphrey, D. Humphrey

LSO #24999Q

cases · OCA, SCJ, OCJ, SCC, ODC

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

62 total

Conviction for historical firearm pointing upheld; sentence varied to a one-year conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence for pointing a firearm at her two children during an incident that occurred 19 years prior.

The trial judge convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the complainants, despite the appellant's denial and inconsistencies in the complainants' evidence.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed credibility and applied the burden of proof.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, and a one-year conditional sentence was imposed.

R. v. Dumont, 2001 ONCA 24174

Applicant Counsel

Todd Ducharme

7 cases1995–2003

Renee M. Pomerance

11 cases1994–2005

David M. Humphrey

In Private Practice62 cases1995–2026

Peter deCarteret Cory

SCC980 cases1989–2001

Frank Iacobucci

SCC1,117 cases1991–2004

Beverley McLachlin

SCC2,017 cases1989–2018

Antonio Lamer

SCC1,381 cases1980–2001

SCCSupreme Court of CanadaFeb 22, 1995

Absence of voir dire reasons alone does not justify appellate intervention.

The Crown appealed a decision setting aside robbery convictions on the basis that the trial judge gave no reasons for ruling incriminating statements admissible on a voir dire.

Applying the governing principle from Burns, the Court held that the absence of reasons is not, by itself, a ground of appeal where the finding is supportable on the evidence or its basis is apparent from the circumstances.

The only issue on the voir dire was credibility, and the ruling made clear that the trial judge rejected the accused's evidence.

The Court also found no error in law in the jury charge and restored the convictions.